Last night, the Rays announced that they had traded John Jaso to the Seattle Mariners for pitcher Josh Lueke and a player to be named later.

Rays fans, meet your new pitcher…

In 2008, while pitching for the Bakersfield Blaze, a single-A affiliate in the Texas Rangers organization, Lueke was charged with rape (via

[Disclaimer: I have worked for several years as a Crime Scene Investigator. DNA is my specialty, and I have worked hundreds of sexual assault cases, and have testified in court on several occasions. So I do know a thing or two about this type of case.]

This is from in June, 2008

In May 2008, the alleged victim attended a Blaze game and then met with some of the players at a bar after the game…the woman willingly went to several bars with the players, including Lueke, Clayton Hamilton and Kasey Kiker…The woman eventually left the bar along with several of the players. She ended up in the apartment of Hamilton and Lueke…The woman told police she remembered vomiting into the toilet at the apartment. While doing so, the woman told police someone she could not identify was standing at her side masturbating on her…She said she passed out, and when she awoke at around 8:45 a.m., she told police she was lying on a couch with her pants down and other parts of her clothing were missing…She told police she felt violated and that she never agreed to have sex with anyone.

Court documents also showed that Lueke denied ever having any physical contact with the victim, and that Lueke “lied multiple times to police investigating the suspected sexual assault.”

Investigators later obtained DNA samples from semen found on the woman’s jeans and white tank top and from an anal swab…A report from the Kern County Crime Lab states, “Josh Lueke matches this DNA” from the anal swab, tank top strap and hair of the alleged victim.

This is very typical of a sexual assault case, and it is how most he-said-she-said sexual assault cases are prosecuted. Typically, the suspect denies ever having sex. DNA then proves there was intercourse. And now, the suspect is a proven liar and is shown to be hiding what really happened. Not good if you are asking a jury to believe your version of events.

But in this case, the victim did not want to go through with the trial, so she agreed to allow a plea bargain. At this point, Lueke changed his plea to “no contest” to a lesser charge of “false imprisonment with violence.” He served a total of 42 days in jail.

Unfortunately, this is the evil side of “The Extra 2%.” Lueke’s criminal past meant that the talent level is worth more than the price the Rays had to pay.



  1. Michael says:

    Is no contest the same as a conviction?

    • SeanDubbs says:

      It's basically the same thing as pleading guilty only without having to go to trial. Also a no contest means the charges can't be used against a defendant if there is a civil suit.

    • Cork Gaines says:

      yes. it is basically the same as a guilty plea without admitting you are guilty.

  2. Dre says:

    So does this make him a registered sex offender?

  3. Raysfan137 says:

    We're all judge and jury now ? I don't care how much experience you have with this sort of case, it's irrelevant for one simple reason. This case has been tried, the defendant plead no contest, was sentenced, and served his time.

    A kid made a bad mistake, and probably (hopefully) learned from it. He served his time. Let's talk about baseball.

    • Jim says:

      Nope. there is no need for us to be judge and jury. He took care of that when he raped a girl, lied about it, and then pled no contest.

      • Raysfan137 says:

        He pled no contest to false imprisonment, not rape. I know it is tough to be logical about such emotional events. But even the DA in the case was quoted as saying he doubted they would get a conviction for rape. There was only evidence for sex, not rape. I'm sure this woman was only there to read bible verses and was coerced into going to the bars where the players hang out, and was forced by gun point into their apartment.

        But of course, you're right Jim. I guess you should just never go to a Rays game again since, using your logic, not only is he guilty of rape, but the Rays are guilty of condoning it by trading for him.

        And then again, MLB in general is the real perpetrator here for letting him continue to play. What do the courts know, who sentenced him ? If we're all going to convict this guy of crimes that the courts never did, then let's convict the Rangers, the Mariners, the Rays and all of baseball as well.

        It sad that I'll be the only one at the Rays games next season while all of you holier than thou folks will be at church praying for my soul. Please pray to Mary the Prostitue, and Matthew the tax swindler, as soon as those of you without sin are finished casting your stones.

        • Chris says:

          See my comment below...but yes, he might have had trouble getting a conviction for "rape" (the severest level) but he would not have had a problem getting a conviction for sexual assault. All they had to prove was that she was severely intoxicated and incapable of consenting legally.

          As I stated before, I don't know the specifics in California, but this is true in many states. I would be surprised if it was not true in California.

        • laura g says:

          Because the legal definition of rape excludes women who do things besides reading bible verses? and excludes women who go to bars? Or because women who do go to bars or hang out with men can't possibly be raped? Or if you go into someone's apt of your own free will then obviously you can't be raped. I hope you don't have any female relatives you care about. God forbid they ever step food in a bar or set their bible down or trust a man not to rape them. I'm sorry, it sounds like you just implied that many women who are raped are asking for it. I know you can't be that big of an ass.

  4. Raysfan248 says:

    @ Raysfan137. Awesome. I couldn't agree with you more about literally everything you said. AMEN! Bahaha

  5. Michael says:

    Is he a free citizen of the united states?

    Is he receiving money to throw a baseball?

    Is he able to throw the baseball?

    Alrighty then

  6. zenny says:

    Yeah, everybody makes mistakes when they're young and stupid. However, this is a pretty serious mistake to make.

    If this is the only time he was ever involved in something like this, it's possible that he learned from it and would never do something similar in the future. However, if this was just the one time he got caught, it could be an indication of a serious lack of judgement and respect for fellow human beings.

    It's quite a gamble for the Rays to trade a catcher who can hit a little for someone with such a large question mark over his head, imo.

  7. CRRaysHead90 says:

    I don't see the proof of rape, only proof of sexual intercourse. whether it was consensual or not will probably always be a he-said-she-said thing. And quit condemning the man, do YOU have proof the prosecution didn't? Didn't think so.

    • Chris says:

      I dont know the law in California, but in many states, it is impossible to have "consensual" sex with somebody that is severely intoxicated, even if they are still conscious and appear to consent. This was a major issue in the Ben Roethlisberger case. And it is the same as intercourse with a child. It is impossible to be "consensual" if they are under a certain age.

      It might be a "lesser" felony, but in many states, sex with somebody that is severely intoxicated is still sexual assault and still a felony.

      • Mike Grant says:

        this is true. it is defined as "mentally incapacitated"

      • KillaTapes says:

        That may be what the law says, but tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people having drunk sex as I type this. I'm not condoning what happened in this case, but it happens every day consensually (whether or not the law says so or not)- and sometimes people have feelings of regret the next day.

        Maybe that's what happened, maybe not, but how can you say for sure one way or another?

        • Chris says:

          1) That's the point. What you are calling "consensual" is not. It is the same as having sex with a minor. It is never "consensual" even the child says "yes." Consent is impossible.

          2) hundreds of thousands of people get drunk and then get in their car and drive home every day. If one of these people get arrested, I'm guessing the "everybody else was doing it" defense won't get very far.

          3) You are right, we don't know what happened in this case. But based on the description given, this woman was beyond the typical level of intoxication. And I have a feeling it would not have been too hard to find a couple of people to testify that she was "blitzed out of her mind" and incapable of making a rational decision.

          • KillaTapes says:

            Exactly, thank you. I wasn't making a point that he is innocent, or that the "everyone was doing it" argument would get him very far. My point was only that he and she were drunk, and they had sex (of some sort), and that that happens all the time, whether legal or not. I'll bet you anything a good handful of the finger pointers here have done it plenty of times in their lives (casual drunken sex if I need to clarify "it").

            I believe that rape is one of the worst crimes known to man. But no one knows what really went down aside from the obvious. No one knows what was said between the two or how everything transpired, but if it were cut and dry there would have either been a full on prosecution, or a full on exoneration. There was neither. No one knows the real story, so who is anyone to condemn the guy?

  8. lou Soscia says:

    another punk hire by our professional teams


Leave a Comment